MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1034, 18 October 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH, Thursday, October IS. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., E.M.I Contempt op Court. Robert M. Old- ! man was brought up on remand charged with contempt of Court in failing tc obey a sumrions. Die accused said he had not disobeyed the summons, as he understood he would not j be required, as the case had been adiourned I till Monday. Dismissed. | Larceny op Wool.—The case of A. J j Chapman, accused of larceny as a bailee of I wool belonging to Sir J. Cracroft Wilson, was 1 again brought on, a number of the witnesses ; haring been examined on Saturday. Mr | Joynt appeared for the accused. Robert j Oldman: I am a wool-sorter, residing at 1 Amberly. In the latter end of February last ] d Wds engaged by the defendant as a woolsorter. Chapman had classed the Culverden wool, and afterwards got th«i locks, pieces, cross-brcds, and some slrins to i SCOI J I ’- I worked for defendant for seven weeks from the 22nd of February. I know a man named Douglas, and I saw him about Chapman s place about that time—about a week or ten days after T had been engaged, i Lr Chapman engaged Douglas some time in i March. He was employed in the packing.

-the wool came from Culverdeu. The wool was scoured, and the fribs were, I think washed but not scoured. The wool that was scoured all came down to Sir Cracroft’s agents in town, 1 believe. The whole of the wool I had anything to do with came down i think seventy-eight bales went through my hands, but I don’t know how much Chapman did before 1 went. ffnspector Feast allowed tho witness 1 a letter which witness had written, but Mr .Joynt objected to its being put in or read by witness.] The wool was baled up and branded with Culverdeu brand. All I saw baled up was branded that way. In sortin'' the wool we took away the‘fribs. There might be a bale of fribs after they were scoured, but T think they were washed. The last I saw of them they were on the river side jon Mr Chapman’s premises. The bale of I washed fribs would weigh about 2 cwt. at 2s :td per lb. 1 don’t know what became of that wool. When I left Chapman’s, Douglas was woolscouring for Chapman. 1 left the 27th of April, and Douglas had been employed there about live weeks. It was usual to sort nil tho wool before it was scpurred, if it was sent to bo done so. This course was not adopted in this case. There might be five or six bales sent to the wash | without being sorted. It is usual for woolscourers lo take cure of the fribs, unless they were only a trivial lot. This lot was not a trivial lot. There were a great number ol daggles in this lot. They were generally considered a perquisite for ih'o wool-scourer, if

fliere was not more than half a ton or eo, but in this case I think there must have been iearly a ton. I don’t know what became of hem, but Douglas was working at them. —C. Huddleston, recalled, said : I did not authorise the defendant to appropriate any of the (ribs or daggles to his own use.—This was flie case. —Mr Joynt submitted that there was ao case, and if the accused were committed conviction must fail, and bis Worship could judge of the consequences. In reviewing the evidence of the principal witness, Douglas, Mr Joynt said he was certain that his discordant story was one to which no jury would give credence. The whole case depended on the evidence of this man, and his whole story was so improbable and so surrounded with matters which tended to throw doubt upon it that no jury would listen to it. At this stage Mr Joynt objected to Sir Cracroft Wilson, who was sitting on the Bench, making an unheard suggestion to the Magistrate while he (Mr Joynt) was addressing the Court on behalf of his client. If Sir Cracroft chose to take his seat on the Bench as a Magistrate well and good, but Mr Joynt considered it highly indecorous, to say the least of it, for Sir Cracroft to say anything on the Bench regarding the case in which ho had been a witness. His Worship remarked that the case did depend on the evidence of Douglas, and so far as it went it showed a prima facie case against accused, and the Court would not take the responsibility of deciding upon it, but would leave it for a jury. The accused would be sent for trial, and he was accordingly committed for trial at next sitting of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed in two sureties of £IOO each,'and himself in £2OO.